I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on:

 

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

 

Thursday, 5 March 2020

10.00am

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

 

Kōmiti Whakarite Mahere /

Planning Committee

 

OPEN AGENDA

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

 

Chairperson

Cr Chris Darby

 

Deputy Chairperson

Cr Josephine Bartley

 

Members

Cr Dr Cathy Casey

Cr Richard Hills

 

Deputy Mayor Cr Bill Cashmore

Cr Tracy Mulholland

 

Cr Fa’anana Efeso Collins

Cr Daniel Newman, JP

 

Cr Pippa Coom

IMSB Member Liane Ngamane

 

Cr Linda Cooper, JP

Cr Greg Sayers

 

Cr Angela Dalton

Cr Desley Simpson, JP

 

Cr Alf Filipaina

Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM

 

Cr Christine Fletcher, QSO

Cr Wayne Walker

 

Mayor Hon Phil Goff, CNZM, JP

Cr John Watson

 

IMSB Member Hon Tau Henare

Cr Paul Young

 

Cr Shane Henderson

 

 

(Quorum 11 members)

 

 

Duncan Glasgow

Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere /
Governance Advisor

 

2 March 2020

 

Contact Telephone: 09 890 2656

Email: duncan.glasgow@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

 


 

Terms of Reference

 

Responsibilities

 

This committee guides the physical development and growth of Auckland through a focus on land use, transport and infrastructure strategies and policies relating to planning, growth, housing and the appropriate provision of enabling infrastructure, as well as programmes and strategic projects associated with these activities. The committee will establish an annual work programme outlining key focus areas in line with its key responsibilities, which include:

 

·         relevant regional strategy and policy

·         transportation

·         infrastructure strategy and policy

·         Unitary Plan, including plan changes (but not any wholesale review of the Plan)

·         Resource Management Act and relevant urban planning legislation framework

·         oversight of Council’s involvement in central government strategies, plans or initiatives that impact on Auckland’s future land use and infrastructure

·         Auckland Plan implementation reporting on priorities and performance measures

·         structure plans and spatial plans

·         housing policy and projects

·         city centre and waterfront development

·         regeneration and redevelopment programmes

·         built and cultural heritage, including public art

·         urban design

·         acquisition of property relating to the committee’s responsibilities and in accordance with the LTP

·         working with and receiving advice from the Heritage Advisory Panel, the Rural Advisory Panel and the Auckland City Centre Advisory Board to give visibility to the issues important to the communities they represent and to help effect change.

 

Powers

 

(i)      All powers necessary to perform the committee’s responsibilities, including:

(a)     approval of a submission to an external body

(b)     establishment of working parties or steering groups.

(ii)      The committee has the powers to perform the responsibilities of another committee, where it is necessary to make a decision prior to the next meeting of that other committee.

(iii)     If a policy or project relates primarily to the responsibilities of the Planning Committee, but aspects require additional decisions by the Environment and Climate Change Committee and/or the Parks, Arts, Community and Events Committee, then the Planning Committee has the powers to make associated decisions on behalf of those other committee(s). For the avoidance of doubt, this means that matters do not need to be taken to more than one of those committees for decisions.

(iii)     The committee does not have:

(a)     the power to establish subcommittees

(b)     powers that the Governing Body cannot delegate or has retained to itself (section 2).

 


 

Auckland Plan Values

 

The Auckland Plan 2050 outlines a future that all Aucklanders can aspire to. The values of the Auckland Plan 2050 help us to understand what is important in that future:

 

 


 

Exclusion of the public – who needs to leave the meeting

 

Members of the public

 

All members of the public must leave the meeting when the public are excluded unless a resolution is passed permitting a person to remain because their knowledge will assist the meeting.

 

Those who are not members of the public

 

General principles

 

·           Access to confidential information is managed on a “need to know” basis where access to the information is required in order for a person to perform their role.

·           Those who are not members of the meeting (see list below) must leave unless it is necessary for them to remain and hear the debate in order to perform their role.

·           Those who need to be present for one confidential item can remain only for that item and must leave the room for any other confidential items.

·           In any case of doubt, the ruling of the chairperson is final.

 

Members of the meeting

 

·           The members of the meeting remain (all Governing Body members if the meeting is a Governing Body meeting; all members of the committee if the meeting is a committee meeting).

·           However, standing orders require that a councillor who has a pecuniary conflict of interest leave the room.

·           All councillors have the right to attend any meeting of a committee and councillors who are not members of a committee may remain, subject to any limitations in standing orders.

 

Independent Māori Statutory Board

 

·           Members of the Independent Māori Statutory Board who are appointed members of the committee remain.

·           Independent Māori Statutory Board members and staff remain if this is necessary in order for them to perform their role.

 

Staff

 

·           All staff supporting the meeting (administrative, senior management) remain.

·           Other staff who need to because of their role may remain.

 

Local Board members

 

·           Local Board members who need to hear the matter being discussed in order to perform their role may remain.  This will usually be if the matter affects, or is relevant to, a particular Local Board area.

 

Council Controlled Organisations

 

·           Representatives of a Council Controlled Organisation can remain only if required to for discussion of a matter relevant to the Council Controlled Organisation.

 

 

 


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

ITEM   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                                                         PAGE

1          Apologies                                                                                                                        7

2          Declaration of Interest                                                                                                   7

3          Confirmation of Minutes                                                                                               7

4          Petitions                                                                                                                          7  

5          Public Input                                                                                                                    7

6          Local Board Input                                                                                                          7

7          Extraordinary Business                                                                                                8

8          Submission on the draft National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity       9

9          Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress Report                                                75

10        City Centre Masterplan Refresh                                                                               189

11        Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill draft submission                               215

12        Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings – 5 March 2020                                                                                                                                     243  

13        Consideration of Extraordinary Items 

PUBLIC EXCLUDED

14        Procedural Motion to Exclude the Public                                                               245

C1       CONFIDENTIAL: Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - rural subdivision appeals and delegation to make urgent decisions on all remaining appeals    245  

 


1          Apologies

 

At the close of the agenda no apologies had been received.

 

 

 

2          Declaration of Interest

 

Members are reminded of the need to be vigilant to stand aside from decision making when a conflict arises between their role as a member and any private or other external interest they might have.

 

 

 

3          Confirmation of Minutes

 

That the Planning Committee:

a)         confirm the ordinary minutes of its meeting, held on Tuesday, 4 February 2020, as a true and correct record.

 

 

 

4          Petitions

 

At the close of the agenda no requests to present petitions had been received.

 

 

 

5          Public Input

 

Standing Order 7.7 provides for Public Input.  Applications to speak must be made to the Governance Advisor, in writing, no later than one (1) clear working day prior to the meeting and must include the subject matter.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.  A maximum of thirty (30) minutes is allocated to the period for public input with five (5) minutes speaking time for each speaker.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for public input had been received.

 

 

 

6          Local Board Input

 

Standing Order 6.2 provides for Local Board Input.  The Chairperson (or nominee of that Chairperson) is entitled to speak for up to five (5) minutes during this time.  The Chairperson of the Local Board (or nominee of that Chairperson) shall wherever practical, give one (1) day’s notice of their wish to speak.  The meeting Chairperson has the discretion to decline any application that does not meet the requirements of Standing Orders.

 

This right is in addition to the right under Standing Order 6.1 to speak to matters on the agenda.

 

At the close of the agenda no requests for local board input had been received.


 

 

7          Extraordinary Business

 

Section 46A(7) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“An item that is not on the agenda for a meeting may be dealt with at that meeting if-

 

(a)        The local  authority by resolution so decides; and

 

(b)        The presiding member explains at the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public,-

 

(i)         The reason why the item is not on the agenda; and

 

(ii)        The reason why the discussion of the item cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting.”

 

Section 46A(7A) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (as amended) states:

 

“Where an item is not on the agenda for a meeting,-

 

(a)        That item may be discussed at that meeting if-

 

(i)         That item is a minor matter relating to the general business of the local authority; and

 

(ii)        the presiding member explains at the beginning of the meeting, at a time when it is open to the public, that the item will be discussed at the meeting; but

 

(b)        no resolution, decision or recommendation may be made in respect of that item except to refer that item to a subsequent meeting of the local authority for further discussion.”

 

 

 


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

Submission on the draft National Policy Statement Indigenous Biodiversity

File No.: CP2020/00962

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval for an Auckland Council submission on the National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       A draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) was released for public feedback in November 2019.

3.       A draft submission on the NPSIB has been prepared for the committee’s consideration.  It has been informed by staff in the context of Auckland, but mindful of the need for the NPSIB to be relevant and useful throughout New Zealand.

4.       The draft submission sets out general support for the provisions of the NPSIB while seeking some amendments intended to promote better outcomes, including:

·   greater integration with other national direction and in particular the National Policy Statement on Urban Development

·   recognition of the role of the Department of Conservation (DOC) in delivering some of the requirements of the NPSIB

·   more detailed and directive objectives and policies

·   more focus on the importance of areas of indigenous biodiversity which are continuous over environmental domain boundaries – i.e. across mean high-water springs, or between freshwater and terrestrial areas

·   amendments to the NPSIB significance criteria to make them more robust and appropriate

·   amendments to the proposed approach to effects management that, seeks removal of the distinction between medium and high significant natural areas and better provision for regionally important infrastructure including stormwater, water supply, wastewater and local roads

·   better alignment between the regional biodiversity strategies which would be required by the NPSIB and RMA plan provision

·   amendments so that provisions relating to regional biodiversity strategies, restoration and enhancement plans and the management of highly mobile fauna are reframed as voluntary direction rather than mandatory requirement, in recognition of the implications of these on less resourced or councils, and/or those with less developed indigenous biodiversity responses.

5.       Submissions are due with the Ministry for the Environment by 14 March 2020.

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the draft Auckland Council submission on the draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (included as Attachment A of the agenda report)

b)      agree that local board feedback received by 5 March 2020 is appended to the Auckland Council submission

c)      delegate authority to approve the final submission to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee and an Independent Māori Statutory Board Member.

Horopaki

Context

6.       In November 2019, the Government released for feedback a draft National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity (NPSIB) along with a discussion document (including questions to focus feedback). This draft is based on an earlier version prepared in 2018 by a stakeholder-led Biodiversity Collaborative Group (BCG). Submissions are due by 14 March 2020.

7.       The NPSIB as drafted would apply to terrestrial biodiversity (i.e. not coastal or freshwater) with the exception of provisions relating to restoration and enhancement, and to regional biodiversity strategies that are intended to apply more broadly.

8.       The Government intends that the draft NPSIB will address issues with the management of indigenous biodiversity under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), including protection of significant indigenous biodiversity.  As identified in the discussion document, these issues include:

·   improving clarity of RMA provisions relating to the maintenance of indigenous biodiversity to reduce inconsistent interpretations by councils; and

·   reduce indigenous biodiversity loss that has resulted from the lack of clarity in interpretation and implementation of these RMA provisions.

9.       The NPSIB is a national instrument and must be given effect to by all councils around New Zealand, in their policy statements and plans. The primary objective of the NPSIB is to maintain indigenous biodiversity. The NPSIB sets out:

·   That tangata whenua in their role as kaitiaki are to be involved in the development of responses to the NPSIB, early, meaningfully and in accordance with tikanga Māori, including to identify their taonga.

·   That tangata whenua are provided opportunities to express their kaitiakitanga including in monitoring, the management and protection of taonga and by allowing sustainable customary use of indigenous vegetation.

·   The requirement to identify significant natural areas (SNAs – equivalent to the Auckland Unitary Plan’s Significant Ecological Areas.  ‘SNAs’ are used throughout this agenda item.) using the criteria set out in the NPSIB.

·   That SNAs are classified as either ‘high’ or ‘medium’, and this classification dictates the required management approach.

·   That provisions must also address biodiversity outside of SNAs (although with less stringency than within or affecting SNAs).

·   That effects on indigenous biodiversity must be managed through the application of the ‘effects management hierarchy’ – i.e. adverse effects are avoided where possible, then remedied, then mitigated and then the use of biodiversity offsets, then biodiversity compensations is considered.

·   That only a limited range of activities are explicitly identified as being able to locate in SNAs when they cannot be located elsewhere, and only in SNAs classified as ‘medium’.  Activities include nationally significant infrastructure, mineral and aggregate extraction, papakainga, marae and ancillary community facilities associated with customary activities on Māori land, the use of Māori land for cultural or economic wellbeing and the provision of a single dwelling and essential associated on-site infrastructure.

·   More specific direction on how existing use rights (in terms of RMA sections 10 and 20A) are to apply in relation to pastoral farming.

·   A requirement to survey, record, manage effects on and disseminate information about highly mobile fauna.

·   That restoration and enhancement opportunities in wetlands, degraded SNAs and some other areas are identified and promoted, including through the use of incentives.

·   That regional councils must set targets for increasing indigenous vegetation cover in urban and rural areas.

·   That regional councils must prepare regional biodiversity strategies (in collaboration with stakeholders).

·   That regional councils must monitor the effectiveness of provisions developed to give effect to the NPSIB.

·   That the resilience of indigenous biodiversity to climate change must be promoted.

·   That a precautionary approach must be adopted towards activities where effects are unclear but potentially significant.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

10.     Auckland Council staff have developed a draft submission on the proposed NPSIB. Overall staff are supportive of the need for an NPSIB and its intent. However, staff have identified a number of opportunities for improvement in the provisions to provide clarity for implementation and ensure it adds value to the approach in Auckland.

11.     The draft submission has been informed by the context of a well-developed and settled approach to the management of indigenous biodiversity in Auckland. The Auckland Unitary Plan includes comprehensive provisions relating to the identification and management of significant indigenous biodiversity.  The discussion document[1] outlines the process Auckland Council undertook in the development of the Significant Ecological Areas overlays (SEAs) and gives some indication of the scale and length of this process.

12.     The council also has a comprehensive programme of biodiversity actions, both on parkland and through the provision of assistance and support to landowners and community groups.

Main Areas of Focus

13.     The draft council submission response focusses on the points outlined below.

14.     Integration and alignment with national direction: At a high level, the submission continues the council’s approach of seeking greater integration between the different existing and new national direction developed by central government.  In particular, it seeks that the contribution of indigenous biodiversity to urban environmental quality is recognised and promoted in new development.  This is not addressed in the proposed NPSIB and is a significant lost opportunity to promote an integrated approach in the implementation of the NPSIB and the National Policy Statement on Urban Development. 

15.     Hutia te Rito, objectives and policies:  The draft submission supports the intent of Hutia Te Rito, as a fundamental concept underpinning the NPSIB. “Hutia Te Rito” is a whakatauki which recognises the inter-relationship between the health of people (te hauora o te tangata) and the health of indigenous biodiversity (te hauora o te koiora), of species and ecosystems that are taonga (te hauora o te taonga) and the wider environment (te hauora o te taiao). 

16.     Objectives and policies: The draft Council submission seeks that the detail in some objectives and policies is expanded to provide more direction, by drawing on the more specific provisions set out later in the NPSIB. In particular, the draft submission seeks that the maintenance of indigenous biodiversity is explicitly linked to both the protection of significant indigenous biodiversity and active restoration and enhancement actions. 


 

17.     Integrated management: The draft submission seeks greater focus on the integrated management of indigenous biodiversity across all environmental domains – i.e. coastal, terrestrial and freshwater. While one of the objectives in the draft NPSIB is to improve the integrated management of indigenous biodiversity, it is unclear whether there is a mandate to apply this to the full range of statutory and non-statutory responses.  This lack of clarity is due to the NPSIB only applying to terrestrial biodiversity, with exceptions around restoration.  The draft submission seeks recognition and stronger support for the ecological importance of contiguous indigenous ecosystems across environmental domain boundaries to ensure environmental gradients are protected for their rarity and ecological diversity.

18.     The submission notes that, although both the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement and the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management and National Environment Standard Freshwater address to some extent indigenous biodiversity, no national direction is provided in these or the draft NPSIB on the identification of significant indigenous biodiversity (in terms of section 6(c) of the RMA) in freshwater and coastal areas.  The submission reinforces the need for strong integration across all these tools to ensure appropriate protection and restoration of coastal and freshwater biodiversity.

19.     Another important aspect of integrated management addressed in the draft submission relates to the role of DOC and the need for the NPSIB to recognise this role explicitly in relation to some of the provisions.  Otherwise, there is a perception that some provisions, for example those applying to highly mobile fauna (3.15), represent a shifting of DOC responsibilities onto local government.  A strong partnership approach is required between all relevant agencies, including DOC, to ensure indigenous biodiversity is managed in an effective way.

20.     Implementation requirements on local authorities: The draft submission supports most of these provisions as appropriate (Part 3 of the NPSIB).  Many provisions are similar to those in the Auckland Unitary Plan, with some offering greater direction that will improve the Auckland Unitary Plan and its implementation.  Other implementation requirements are new which will be challenging for the council – for example in relation to highly mobile fauna. Nevertheless, if done well these new requirements would improve the management of indigenous biodiversity in Auckland. 

21.     However, while the submission is supportive of provisions which direct the preparation of regional biodiversity strategies, restoration and enhancement plans and the management of ‘highly mobile fauna’ it recognises that other councils around New Zealand would struggle to undertake these requirements, at least at the same time as delivering on the ‘core’ requirements to identify and protect SNAs and other areas with biodiversity values.  Strong submissions from other councils individually and collectively (through LGNZ) on these provisions can be expected.  The draft Auckland Council submission suggests that these provisions should be reframed as voluntary responses, rather than mandatory requirements.  This would enable the NPSIB to still provide meaningful support and direction to Auckland Council and other well-resourced councils with a comprehensive regulatory and non-regulatory approach to indigenous biodiversity management, while not over-burdening those councils that would find it ‘too’ much to implement.

Areas of Concern

22.     The draft submission identifies areas of concern where substantive amendments are sought. These include:

23.     Significance criteria: While the significance criteria in the draft NPSIB are generally considered appropriate and well aligned to those in the Auckland Unitary Plan some of them are subjective and likely to lead to disagreements between ecologists on their meaning and application.  Some specific amendments or additions to sub-criteria are sought in the draft submission to ‘tighten’ the criteria.  This includes seeking that the criteria be underpinned through the use of an ecosystem classification system that is endorsed and used by all regional councils in New Zealand including Auckland (Singers NJD and Rogers GM. 2014. A classification of New Zealand’s terrestrial ecosystems. Science for Conservation 325. Department of Conservation, Wellington).
This ecosystem classification system is recognised as providing an ecologically sound and nationally consistent approach to identifying current and past indigenous ecosystems, and its use would provide for a more objective assessment of some of the significance criteria, including in particular that relating to ‘Representativeness’.

24.     Classification of SNAs as ‘medium’ and ‘high’:  The draft submission does not support the requirement to classify SNAs as ‘high’ or ‘medium’, or the way this classification has been used in the application of the effects management hierarchy in the draft NPSIB.  While the intent of this approach is understandable – to afford higher levels of protection to more ‘important’ SNAs, and to provide certainty about what management approach applies – there are a number of reasons why this is unlikely to lead to better outcomes.

25.     The attributes to be used to differentiate between ‘high’ and ‘medium’ SNAs are generally highly subjective – e.g. a difference between a high diversity and medium diversity of species, a large size vs a moderate size.  Given the importance of this classification in determining what is appropriate use of land that has SNA and it is likely to generate ongoing contention and litigation.

26.     One of the distinguishing attributes directs that any SNA within an area that has less than 20 per cent of the original indigenous vegetation cover should be ‘high’ – arguably meaning that all of the SNAs on the isthmus, the north shore, Awhitu, and much of Manukau and Rodney would be considered ‘high’. 

27.     Additionally, while the Auckland Unitary Plan does have a strong protection focus, including directing activities away from SNAs, potentially the management response implicit in the draft NPSIB would mean many activities which need to be provided for – including regionally important infrastructure – would not be able to occur, particularly in urban areas.

28.     Conversely, despite the possibility that many SNAs in Auckland would be ‘high’ at least under one of the attributes, any SNAs that are ‘medium’ would likely inevitably be considered less valuable than those that are ‘high’.  It is possible for perverse outcomes to arise – e.g. parts of the Hunua Ranges classified as ‘medium’ while a pocket of regenerating forest in the city is classified as ‘high’ with a consequent different management approach.  Ultimately it could see inappropriate distinctions being made between SNAs on the basis of subjective or ‘blunt’ attributes, leading to ecologically inconsistent decisions.

29.     A best practice approach to managing potential effects on indigenous terrestrial biodiversity requires a detailed assessment of both the ecological characteristics of an SNA (or other area) and the specific effects that are predicted to happen.  Having to undertake a region-wide classification of all SNAs as ‘medium’ or ‘high’ would necessitate many weeks of work when, in reality, this classification will be irrelevant in many instances where activities are not anticipated.  Moreover, given the coarseness and subjectivity of the attributes proposed, it may still not give appropriate direction as to when activities should and should not occur, and will be subject to vigorous challenge by applicants.  A more detailed assessment would still be required, meaning little has been gained in terms of certainty of outcome.

30.     The draft submission seeks that the approach of classifying all SNAs as ‘medium’ or ‘high’ is abandoned, and instead the effects management hierarchy should apply to all SNAs (i.e. adverse effects are first avoided, then remedied, then mitigated, then consideration is given to the use of biodiversity offsets, then environmental compensation).  This in itself would be a step change for the management of indigenous biodiversity in New Zealand. 

31.     The draft submission suggests that provisions in the NPSIB promote the identification of areas which should be afforded higher level of protection because of their vulnerability and irreplaceability.  This should be undertaken by local authorities, through a rigorous and transparent process involving landowners and other stakeholders – not as part of a region wide, high level application of arbitrary and uncertain classification attributes.

32.     Provision for regionally important infrastructure:  The NPSIB makes specific provision for “nationally significant infrastructure” but this definition does not include many of the types of infrastructure critical for the functioning of Auckland, including water supply, wastewater, gas, electricity, telecommunications, local roads and stormwater management. 
The draft submission seeks explicit provision for regionally important infrastructure so that while the effects management hierarchy must still apply – in particular that avoidance is seen as the first and best option – these activities can be provided for when such avoidance is impossible for functional or operational requirements. 

33.     Regional biodiversity strategy:  The draft submission also seeks stronger alignment between regional biodiversity strategies and the provisions in RMA plans and policy statements, so that important initiatives supported by the community – for example the protection, restoration and enhancement actions undertaken to support the North-West wildlink – can be better reflected in plan provisions.  As set out above, the submission also suggests that the requirement for regional biodiversity strategies would be better framed in the NPSIB as a voluntary, rather than mandatory, provision.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

34.     Management of indigenous biodiversity is strongly linked to the issue of climate change, both because of the impacts of climate change on biodiversity, and the role of biodiversity in supporting resilient, healthy environments.  The draft NPSIB provides useful direction in relation to climate change, including that it must be considered in regional biodiversity strategies (required under the NPSIB).  The Council’s draft submission supports the provisions in the NPSIB relating to climate change but seeks they are given more emphasis, including in the identification of SNAs.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

35.     Several staff workshops were undertaken to inform the preparation of the draft submission.  Staff from Plans and Places; Natural Environment Strategy; RIMU; Resource Consents; Healthy Waters; Parks Services; Bio-design, Advisory and Planning, Auckland Transport and Watercare Services Limited attended and/or provided written feedback. 

36.     Staff generally support the NPSIB but have identified potential impacts in relation to the council’s current approach to managing indigenous biodiversity. These form the basis of the submission as set out above.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

37.     Local boards were notified of the proposed submission opportunity with a memo on 18 December 2019 and provided with key themes likely to be included in the submission on 17 January 2020.

38.     In response to a request, staff attended a workshop with the Waitākere Ranges Local Board and one with representatives from the North West Local Boards at a combined workshop facilitated by the Upper Harbour Local Board.

39.     Written feedback on the NPSIB from Local Boards was received and is appended to the draft submission.  An overview of this feedback and any further feedback received will be provided at the meeting.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

40.     The proposed NPSIB contains several provisions, including objectives and policies, that directly require enhanced involvement of tangata whenua in plan development and management of indigenous biodiversity. The NPSIB is based on a foundational whakatauki, Hutia te Rito.

41.     Mana whenua representatives and the Independent Māori Statutory Board were advised about the submission process and given an opportunity to provide any feedback with a memo on 19 December 2019.  Any feedback received will be outlined at the meeting.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

42.     There are no specific financial implications in lodging a submission.  However, implementation of the NPSIB once it is in force will require resourcing.  While the Council has significant resources already assigned for statutory and non-statutory work in relation to indigenous biodiversity some of the requirements of the NPSIB may necessitate additional budget and resourcing.  In addition, it may require re-prioritisation of work to reallocate budget and resourcing to give effect to the NPSIB. 

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

43.     There are no risks identified in relation to the lodgement of a submission.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

44.     The submission will be finalised, subject to addressing any matters determined by the committee. The final submission will be circulated to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the committee, and an Independent Māori Statutory Board member from the committee for approval.

45.     The submission will be lodged with the Ministry for the Environment by 14 March 2020.

46.     The Ministry for the Environment will review the NPSIB taking account of submissions. The Government intends to make final decisions on the NPSIB in mid-2020.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft submission on the draft National Policy statement for Indigenous Biodiversity

17

b

Local board feedback Māngere-Ōtāhuhu

59

c

Local board feedback Albert-Eden

69

      

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Jenny Fuller - Manager Planning - Aucklandwide

Authorisers

John Duguid - General Manager - Plans and Places

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 


 


 


 


 


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress Report

File No.: CP2020/01141

 

  

 

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To present the first Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress Report and to provide an update on new information relevant to the Auckland Plan 2050.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Auckland Plan 2050 was adopted in June 2018 and sets the long-term strategic direction for Auckland.

3.       Reporting on progress against the Auckland Plan 2050 is done through:

a)      Annual Monitoring Reports against the Plan’s measures (annual scorecard)

b)      Three Yearly Progress Reports against the Plan’s outcomes from 2020 (the main subject of this report and included as Attachment A)

c)      Updates on new information relevant to the Auckland Plan 2050 (of which this is the third).

4.       The Three Yearly Progress Report provides an in-depth analysis of progress towards the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes and identifies 17 opportunities for greater progress.

5.       The main findings of this report support the continued focus on the Plan’s key challenges of high population growth, shared prosperity and environmental degradation.  This is reinforced by emerging themes across all the outcomes of ongoing equity challenges, our response to climate change and the importance of community resilience in a rapidly changing future.

6.       The update on the Auckland Plan covers new data, information and government reforms relevant to the Plan and includes a summary of the Development Strategy monitoring report.

 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress Report (February 2020)

b)      approve the opportunities for greater progress (as identified in the Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress Report) as a basis for alignment with the 10-year budget and other decision making as appropriate

c)      receive the update on the Auckland Plan 2050

d)      request the Three Yearly Progress Report be distributed to all local boards for their information.

 

Horopaki

Context

7.       The Auckland Plan 2050, a statutory 30-year spatial plan for Auckland, was adopted in June 2018 (PLA/2018/62).

 

8.       The legislation for the Auckland Plan sets out the requirements for implementing the plan. It must:

·    enable coherent and co-ordinated decision making by Auckland Council and other parties to determine the future location and timing of critical infrastructure, services, and investment within Auckland

·    provide a basis for aligning the implementation plans, regulatory plans, and funding programmes of the Auckland Council

·    identify policies, priorities, land allocations and programmes and investments to implement the strategic direction and specify how resources will be provided to implement the strategic direction.

9.       In addition, the Development Strategy component of the Auckland Plan 2050 meets the requirements of the National Policy Statement on Urban Development Capacity.

10.     In line with these requirements, the Three Yearly Progress Report provides an in-depth analysis of progress towards the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes and identifies opportunities for greater progress as a basis for alignment with the council’s 10-year budget and other decision-making as appropriate.

11.     The Auckland Plan update sets out central government reforms and initiatives underway that are relevant to the Plan.

12.     The Development Strategy is a core component of the Auckland Plan 2050.  Monitoring progress towards implementation is undertaken annually. The first monitoring report was delivered to elected members in October 2019.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

13.     The Auckland Plan 2050 uses 33 measures to measure progress and trends across the six outcomes and the Development Strategy.  The first annual scorecard was presented in July 2019 and the Development Strategy monitoring report was completed in October 2019.

14.     The Three Yearly Progress Report provides an in-depth analysis using a wider range of data and research than the annual scorecard to evaluate progress towards the outcomes. The Plan takes a 30-year view of outcomes and progress should be considered in the context of this long term planning horizon.

15.     This is the first Three Yearly Progress Report since the adoption of the Plan in June 2018. Whilst it is not yet three years since adoption, it is important to set up the three yearly monitoring framework as early as practicable and use the results as a basis for alignment with council’s activities.

16.     The report provides supporting evidence and strategic context for areas identified as opportunities for greater progress. These areas are considered integral to moving towards the outcome and provides a basis for alignment with the 10-year budget.

17.     The Auckland Plan 2050 identified three key challenges that Auckland faces now and in the future. These are high population growth, shared prosperity, and environmental degradation. The report strongly supports the need to continue to address these challenges as they underpin many of the opportunities for greater progress.

18.     Common themes have emerged from the evidence and analysis, most prominently equity, climate change transition and community resilience.

19.     The significance of equity is evident in spatial and ethnicity trends related to health outcomes, employment and income, Māori decision making, housing affordability and transport safety and access. Transition needed in response to climate change is reflected in sustainable housing, transport emissions and urban development impacts on the environment. The importance of community resilience emerges in measures of population growth, diversity, urban spaces, marae development and business innovation.

20.     The Three Yearly Progress Report is summarised below with detail provided in the full report (Attachment A):

Belonging and Participation Outcome

Progress in the right direction

Mixed progress

Opportunities for greater progress

•  Neighbourhood safety

•  Trust in people

•  Support for diversity

•  Life expectancy

•  Participation in the arts

 

•  Most Aucklanders continue to view ethnic and cultural diversity positively, but this varies across Auckland’s communities

•  Health trends such as life expectancy and smoking have improved, but others such as obesity and mental health have worsened

•  Physical activity for children and adults has been declining, alongside self-reported health

•  Household incomes are increasing, but there is less money available after housing costs

1.   Supporting community connection and resilience

2.   Improving physical activity and mental health

3.   Supporting communities of greatest need

 

Māori Identity and Wellbeing Outcome

Progress in the right direction

Mixed progress

Opportunities for greater progress

• Māori youth participation in education and training

• Māori academic achievement in mainstream education

• Māori asset base

• Māori employment, income and wages

 

• Income gap is not widening but not closing either

• Individual wealth is not growing largely due to lower levels of home ownership

• Little progress has been made in increasing the number of Auckland Māori who are te reo proficient

• Only half of Auckland’s Māori had visited their ancestral marae over the last year

Many co-governance/co-management arrangements have been set up but how effective/enduring they are is still to be determined

4.   Ensuring physical and cultural revitalisation of marae

5.   Increasing Māori capacity in decision making and leadership

6.   Supporting te reo Māori to flourish for future generations

 

Homes and Places Outcome

Progress in the right direction

Mixed progress

Opportunities for greater progress

• Dwelling consent numbers and Code of Compliance Certificates issued

• Dwelling consents for intensive housing

Housing affordability in part

• Some improvement in housing affordability although a large majority of residents do not feel their current housing costs are affordable

• Increasing proportion of residents meet the criteria of being homeless

• Auckland is one of the most common regions across the country reporting damp homes and rental dwellings are much more likely to be always damp than owner-occupied dwellings

• Emissions from residential energy use make up 5.2 per cent of Auckland’s total emissions profile

7.   Tackling growth in the intermediate housing market

8.   Preventing homelessness

9.   Ensuring low carbon, resilient, healthy homes and places

 


 

 

Transport and Access Outcome

Progress in the right direction

Mixed progress

Opportunities for greater progress

• Public transport boardings

• Cycling counts

Perceptions of public transport reliability

• Deaths and serious injuries in Auckland were increasing annually since 2012, but declined in 2018

• Transport emissions continue to increase annually, largely related to travel by road, but management of transport waste is improving

Perceptions of public transport accessibility, reliability and affordability have not changed overall, but varies across Auckland’s communities

10.  Responding to climate change through transport

11.  Ensuring equity in access to transport

12. Improving safety on the transport network

 

Environment and Cultural Heritage Outcome

Progress in the right direction

Mixed progress

Opportunities for greater progress

• Nitrate levels in rural streams

• Domestic waste volumes

Community awareness and engagement

• Development is following a quality compact approach, but urbanisation is still impacting the natural environment and protection of our cultural heritage

• Water quality is improving in some places and worsening in others

• Domestic waste per household is reducing but commercial waste to landfill is increasing

More historic heritage places are being protected but only a small percentage of Māori cultural heritage is protected

13.  Transitioning to sustainable urban planning and development approaches

14. Building resilience of our environment, species, cultural heritage and infrastructure to climate change impacts

 

Opportunity and Prosperity Outcome

Progress in the right direction

Mixed progress

Opportunities for greater progress

• Income, wages and employment

• Participation in education

• Knowledge intensive employment

• Digital access

Tourism spend

• Employment is rising and unemployment is low, though there remain disparities in population groups and areas

• Over the last 10 years a business’ ability to find skilled labour in Auckland has become more difficult but has shown signs of improvement in recent years

• Proportion of young people with a higher level qualification has stayed around the same

Knowledge intensive employment is growing steadily but its share of total employment has remained around the same

15.  Addressing the ability to afford everyday needs

16.  Developing skills for the future

17. Supporting business resilience through innovation

21.     Some outcome trends remain difficult to determine due to limitations and availability of data. Many measures in the report are presented from the time of the Plan’s adoption in 2018 and require further time series to determine a real trend. Information gaps, including spatial analyses, have been identified as requiring further research to inform the next Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress Report (2023).  

Update to Auckland Plan 2050

22.     This is the third update and covers changes that impact on Auckland’s context and updates to data or information within the Plan. This update will be made available on the ‘what’s new’ section of the digital plan website.  Any developments or events that could have a significant impact on the Plan would be brought to committee as they arise.

23.     Data updates relate to recent releases of the 2018 Census data. The results of the census are in line with trends discussed in the Auckland Plan 2050. The plan takes a 30-year view and therefore changes in data are not expected to drive a change in strategic direction at this stage. Population projections are due to be released later in the year so will be covered in a later update. Iwi affiliation data will not be released due to issues with Census 2018 response rates.

24.     Government reform impacts on the implementation of the Auckland Plan 2050. There have been key reforms in the following areas:

·    Housing and urban development

o   The Urban Development Bill would give Kāinga Ora significant powers to enable it to undertake urban development. This could potentially unlock development which the private market would be unable to deliver. Council supports the Bill in principle but has concerns with the lack of integration with council strategies and plans required of Kāinga Ora when planning their developments.

o   The draft National Policy Statement on Urban Development proposes to add more requirements to ensure council plans provide enough feasible development capacity. Provisions that would allow out of sequence greenfield development, or weakening of the Rural Urban Boundary, have the potential to undermine the Development Strategy and associated infrastructure provision.

o   The Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill seeks to support the provision of infrastructure for housing and urban development. It proposes tools such as special purpose vehicles and direct investment by central government. This potentially reduces the impact of local authority financing and funding constraints.

o   The Aotearoa/New Zealand Homelessness Action Plan has just been released. The plan is backed by over $300 million of extra funding, including $175 million to deliver 1,000 additional transitional housing places by the end of 2020

·    The environment - a key focus has been water quality improvement through the essential freshwater package, and the protection of indigenous biodiversity through a proposed national policy statement. The need to reverse degradation of natural environments is also a focus for the comprehensive reform of the resource management system.

·    Climate change - the Climate Change Commission that has been established with the requirement to create national adaptation plans and carbon budgets will give climate policy a degree of independence from the government of the day. The proposed Emissions Trading Scheme reform is also a signal that the present government intends to accelerate emissions reductions in order to meet our reduction targets.

Development Strategy Monitoring Report

25.     Monitoring of the Development Strategy, a key component of the Auckland Plan, is done on an annual basis to measure and report on progress toward achieving the implementation of the strategy. The first report was released in October 2019. For completeness, it is appended as Attachment B to this report.

26.     The Development Strategy monitoring report is accessible online through the Auckland Plan 2050 website, with links to new interactive monitoring dashboards, which have been created to supplement the report.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

27.     This report highlights several trends that directly impact on greenhouse gas emissions largely related to transport, housing, and business growth. It outlines the need to both mitigate and become resilient to the impacts of climate change, specifically through the following opportunities for greater progress:

·    Ensuring low carbon, resilient, healthy homes and places

·    Responding to climate change through transport

·    Transitioning to sustainable urban planning and development approaches

·    Building resilience of our environment, species, cultural heritage and infrastructure to climate change impacts

·    Supporting business resilience through innovation.

28.     The impact of climate change has emerged as a significant theme that will be addressed through alignment with the 10-year budget 2021-31.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

29.     The Three Yearly Progress Report discusses some of the roles and activities that the council group are currently involved in with regards to each outcome area. The council group will be provided with advice that addresses the opportunities for greater progress through alignment with the 10-year budget 2021-31. Council staff will continue to work with substantive CCOs to ensure further progression and implementation of outcomes where relevant.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

30.     The Three Yearly Progress Report includes analysis of some measures at a spatial level and addresses issues of inequality and disparities that exist across Auckland’s communities. These disparities are most evident in the following opportunities for greater progress:

·    Supporting communities of greatest need

·    Increasing Māori capacity in leadership and decision-making

·    Ensuring equity in access to transport

·    Addressing the ability to afford everyday needs.

31.     This report provides a monitoring framework that can assist with reporting progress against outcomes. The Strategic Advice Unit will work with Local Board Services to assist with local reporting of progress towards outcomes and will distribute the report to all local boards for their information.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

32.     The Three Yearly Progress Report shows progress towards the Auckland Plan 2050 outcome of Māori Identity and Wellbeing. The areas identified as opportunities for greater progress are:

·    Ensuring physical and cultural revitalisation of marae

·    Increasing Māori capacity in decision making and leadership

·    Supporting te reo Māori to flourish for future generations.


 

33.     Directions for improving outcomes for Māori are included within most of the Auckland Plan 2050 outcomes and therefore progress or otherwise in these areas will have an impact on Māori. Trends and results that are specific to Māori (for example, health, economic, and road safety statistics) are detailed alongside each of the outcome areas.

34.     The range of specific and enduring data sets for Māori are relatively limited.  There are new metrics being developed internal to council (Unitary Plan monitoring framework, Māori Outcomes framework) and external to council (Stats NZ – Indicators Aotearoa New Zealand, Te Kupenga) that could potentially provide for more robust data sets.  The Independent Māori Statutory Board, through the Māori Plan, has developed a monitoring framework which complements the Auckland Plan monitoring framework with many shared measures. Establishing and maintaining a robust data set for Auckland’s Māori is important to ensure any unintended consequences of council’s decisions are being considered.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

35.     The strategic direction set in the Auckland Plan 2050 provides advice to support decision-making on council’s long-term plans. Staff will use the Three Yearly Progress Report to input into the 10-year budget 2021-31 through the identified opportunities for greater progress as set out in the report.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

36.     Research and analysis of datasets, measures and trends can be limited by data availability, accuracy and inconsistencies in interpretation. Whilst great care has been taken to ensure accuracy of data and validity of information, the areas identified as opportunities for greater progress have relied on a range of information sources and have been considered within a strategic and future focussed context.

37.     This report identifies some of the central and local government initiatives undertaken in relation to the outcome areas and is not a comprehensive list.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

38.     The Planning Committee will receive the following regular reporting on the Auckland Plan 2050:

·    Auckland Plan annual scorecard, containing a commentary on the 33 outcomes measures, the next report due July 2020

·    impacts on the content or implementation of the plan, the next report due July 2020

·    a three yearly progress report that provides an in-depth analysis of outcome trends and provides advice on opportunities for greater progress for council’s long term planning processes, the next report due in 2023.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Plan 2050 Three Yearly Progress Report

83

b

Development Strategy Monitoring Report

165

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Janelle Breckell - Principal Spec Akl Plan Imp & Monitoring

Simon Randall - Team Ldr Strategic Scanning

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

City Centre Masterplan Refresh

File No.: CP2020/01428

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide an overview of the engagement process undertaken from July 2019 to February 2020 to refresh the City Centre Masterplan (CCMP).

2.       To seek adoption of the refreshed City Centre Masterplan in full.  

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

3.       The City Centre Masterplan is a high-level vision for the Auckland city centre and waterfront, first published in 2012.  This report is an overview of an eight-month period of consultation and targeted engagement to refresh the CCMP. This in turn represents the culmination of almost three years of CCMP and Waterfront Plan refresh work.

4.       On 2 July 2019, Planning Committee unanimously approved a proposal to seek public input on the high-level outcomes, transformational moves and content of the CCMP.

5.       Between July 2019 and February 2020, more than 50 presentations, workshops, targeted meetings and other engagements were undertaken across Council family and with external audiences. This informed and supported the public consultation. 

6.       During public consultation, 542 public submissions were made on the CCMP from individuals and organisations.  Seventy-six per cent of the submissions supported the CCMP. Themes arising from this feedback, along with that already gathered, have informed the masterplan.

7.       CCMP feedback included submissions from membership organisations representing businesses, residents, road users, commercial property, planning, design logistics and transport. These were generally supportive, and any qualifiers have informed edits to the CCMP.

8.       All local boards were invited to participate in the CCMP refresh. Workshops were subsequently undertaken with Ōrākei and Waitematā Local Boards. Both have passed resolutions in support of the CCMP.

9.       A detailed submission on the CCMP was provided by Auckland Transport (AT). It identifies that Access for Everyone (A4E) – a fundamentally different way of managing transport within the city centre – aligns with AT’s existing mode shift plans and can be achieved if new enabling programmes are funded and implemented. The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) also identified A4E as a flagship opportunity to shape travel within the city centre.

10.     A summary of the public feedback has been communicated widely to all submitters and stakeholder groups involved in the process. The full feedback report is available on request.

11.     The CCMP engagement process, results and changes were presented and discussed at a Planning Committee workshop on 19 February 2020. A presentation was also made by AT to inform the discussion and next steps.

12.     This report seeks the Planning Committee’s adoption of the refreshed City Centre Masterplan, thus marking the completion of the 2012 CCMP refresh project.


 

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      adopt the refreshed City Centre Masterplan, incorporating the outcomes, transformational moves and Access for Everyone as set out in this report (and attached in summary form in Attachment E of the agenda report)

b)      note that Auckland Transport and partners are commencing a comprehensive investigation into the implementation of the Access for Everyone concept, including funding, phasing and the opportunity to develop pilot projects as part of a transition plan

c)      note that the refreshed City Centre Masterplan will be digitised and available from April 2020.

Horopaki

Context

13.     Since July 2019, the CCMP refresh team has acted on the instructions of the Planning Committee to undertake engagement on the CCMP refreshment. The purpose of this report is to show:

a)    how we have engaged with subject matter experts (SMEs), stakeholders and partners via targeted and public consultation

b)    the themes emerging from the consultation and how this material has informed and refined the CCMP material

c)    how completion of the CCMP refresh will inform Council group actions to continue to deliver the vision for Auckland city centre.

Progress of update

14.     At a Planning Committee meeting on 28 March 2017, elected members reiterated support for the CCMP vision and resolved (PLA/2017/31) to support a refresh to the CCMP implementation strategy. The targeted refresh of the Waterfront Plan was also noted (PLA/2017/32).

15.     At the Planning Committee meeting on 27 November 2018, elected members gave unanimous support to the CCMP refresh as a light-touch digital document, integrating the Waterfront Plan into the CCMP and incorporating rolling updates. (PLA/2018/121).

16.     At the above meeting, the key focus areas for rolling updates were agreed to be:

·   Māori Outcomes

·   Grafton Gully Boulevard

·   Queen Street - Access for Everyone.

17.     The resolution (PLA/2018/121) also emphasised the importance of collaboration in the CCMP refresh and instructed Auckland Council to develop material for public consultation, to begin in mid-2019.

18.     A series of workshops with the Planning Committee on 26 March, 16 May and 12 June 2019 informed the development of a consultation approach that incorporated these new updates into a light-touch update of the 2012 CCMP’s outcomes and transformational moves.

19.     At a Planning Committee meeting on 2 July 2019, staff were instructed (PLA/2019/62) to develop consultation material based on the outcomes, transformational moves and Access for Everyone (A4E) concept discussed at the workshops. Targeted and public engagement was to be undertaken and reported back to the Planning Committee in early 2020. 

Overview of CCMP consultation and engagement

20.     From March 2019, the CCMP refresh team worked closely with Auckland Council’s Citizen and Customer Engagement representatives to develop a consultation and engagement plan. The Planning Committee approved this plan at its meeting on 2 July 2019. The plan was developed to be consistent with equivalent non-statutory consultations.

Targeted engagement v1

21.     The first stage of the CCMP consultation occurred between July and August 2019. It centred on a programme of targeted engagement. This included, but was not limited to engagement with:

·       Elected members

·       Partners

·       Council internal audiences

·       Council-Controlled Organisations (CCOs)

·       Advisory panels

·       City centre reference groups

·       Parties directly affected by upcoming changes.

22.     This targeted engagement was intended to update partners and stakeholders with the Planning Committee decision. It provided consistent knowledge of the CCMP refresh process across the council whanau and enabled the CCMP refresh team to develop and refine the public consultation material based on expert advice.

23.     Targeted engagement ensured that the consultation material was consistent with statutory planning guidance for the whole city: the Auckland Plan 2050, the Auckland Unitary Plan and also the Auckland Transport Alignment Plan.

24.     A city centre reference group ran throughout 2019, consisting of membership organisations, including the NZ Automobile Association (NZAA), City Centre Residents Group (CCRG), Heart of the City (HoTC), Greater Auckland and Generation Zero. During the targeted engagement, the refence group was able to provide input to the CCMP vision, representing their members’ views.

25.     Targeted engagement was completed in the first half of August 2019. Findings from this process helped to shape the public consultation material.

Public engagement

26.     The second stage of CCMP engagement was public consultation. Members of the public were invited to review the city centre proposals and provide feedback online via the council’s ‘Have Your Say’ website. This ran from 9 September to 18 October 2019.

27.     All relevant information and documentation was available on-line at https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/have-your-say. Hard copies of the relevant information were made available in libraries, local board offices and service centres. Written feedback was gathered through forms (online and hard copy), emails, letters and proformas.

28.     The decision to consult on the revised CCMP received widespread coverage in the national press, including Scoop, Stuff and the New Zealand Herald. In order to raise awareness of the engagement process and opportunity to participate, the CCMP consultation was advertised via Auckland Council digital platforms, with articles published on OurAuckland and the Auckland Council Facebook and Twitter pages.

29.     E-mails were sent to the stakeholders and partners who had already contributed, as well as the thousands of members of the Auckland Council People’s Panel, via the People’s Panel Newsletter.


 

30.     Membership organisations provided an extra level of engagement, both by encouraging their members to provide feedback and canvassing opinions to provide corporate views of the CCMP. This significantly increased the coverage of the CCMP refresh and reflected the wide level of interest in the process. A summary of membership organisations’ submissions is attached.

31.     Public feedback was independently assessed by the consultancy Buzz Channel. The results and the subsequent changes are set out in the next section.

Targeted engagement v2

32.     A second round of targeted engagement took place in December 2019 and January 2020 in response to detailed submissions from major city centre stakeholders. These included Auckland Museum and Art Gallery, Ports of Auckland Ltd, Cooper & Co and others. This allowed their submissions and the CCMP to be discussed in greater detail.

33.     The CCMP has thus been subject to an extensive programme of consultation and engagement, designed to develop a coordinated high-level vision for the heart of Auckland. The next section summarises the themes emerging in the public consultation and how this has shaped the CCMP.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

34.     Public consultation on the CCMP refresh ended on 18 October 2019, attracting 542 submissions from individuals and organisations. Feedback was sought on five documents, all of which had been refined and finalised in July and August 2019 via targeted engagement:

·        Document 1 – Outcomes

·        Documents 2 and 3 – Transformational Movies (summary and full text)

·        Documents 4 and 5 – Access for Everyone (summary and full text).

35.     Every submission on the CCMP was read and recorded by the Auckland Design Office. Responses requiring further advice were referred to subject matter experts. Over 2,800 line items were entered into the consultation database for record-keeping and further consideration. Submissions were received from every local board area.

36.     Independent analysis provided further insight. A public consultation feedback report was produced by Buzz Channel. This report analysed the responses to determine the levels of support for the CCMP vision and identify the main themes emerging from the consultation.

Themes – overall CCMP vision

37.     Among the 542 respondents, 76 per cent supported the general direction of the CCMP, with 10 per cent opposing and 14 per cent neutral. Throughout the feedback there was a general desire for urgency, tangible action and progress towards the goals and direction expressed in the CCMP.

38.     Among the 76 per cent of responses in support of the CCMP, the most frequently mentioned theme was its direction towards greater pedestrian friendliness in the city centre.

39.     The plan’s environmental focus was also well-received, with participants supporting moves to make the city centre a more human-focused and environmentally friendly space. Improved air quality and plans to combat the effects of climate change were a particular focus.

40.     The need to improve Auckland’s public transport was also mentioned throughout the feedback, and many felt this would be essential to deliver the CCMP’s goals.


 

41.     Among those who did not support the CCMP, the primary reasons related to a general dislike of the direction or potential costs of the proposals, a desire to focus on other areas of Auckland rather than the city centre, and a sense that the plan under-emphasised vehicular access.

42.     There were no fundamental or overwhelming issues arising from the CCMP consultation. The general direction, outcomes and transformational moves outlined in the CCMP were generally supported by a large majority of respondents. This feedback has allowed us to make improvements to the CCMP material while having confidence in the overall vision.

43.     When considering comments for inclusion, the scope of the CCMP (i.e. as a high-level urban design vision) was used to determine the extent to which they were appropriate for incorporation.

Themes emerging – Outcomes

44.     Ten city centre-wide outcomes were consulted on:

1)      Tāmaki Makaurau: Our place in the world

2)      Accessible city centre

3)      Inclusive, engaging and child-friendly city centre

4)      Green city centre

5)      Public life

6)      Liveable city centre

7)      Quality built form

8)      Heritage-defined city centre

9)      Sustainable city centre

10)    Prosperous city centre

45.     All 10 Outcomes were supported by at least two thirds of the participants. The highest support was for Accessible City Centre (90 per cent), Green City Centre (88 per cent) and Liveable City Centre (87 per cent).

46.     While people talked in detail about various additions and requirements for the CCMP, the main general theme about the outcomes was that they covered the important aspirations for the city centre and were important goals to focus on.

47.     Some felt that the plans sounded good but wanted to see progress on actual tangible outcomes and improvement to the city centre. Others asked what, specifically, the outcomes meant and what actions and proposals they would trigger. They felt the outcomes were too vague / open to interpretation and possibly overlapped.

48.     Some felt the CCMP could have more focus on creating a city that values people and the public, with amenities and facilities for public, cultural and recreational use (as well as commercial). This related to a theme of inclusivity: to make the city centre welcoming and accessible for people on lower incomes and from all Auckland suburbs.

49.     A small proportion of participants felt the CCMP proposals went too far in prioritising pedestrian access over vehicle / driver access. They felt that prioritisation of car access was critical for the city centre.

Changes in emphasis to Outcomes

50.     Based on these themes, alterations were made to emphasise the following four Outcomes to make them clearer and more focused.

Outcome 2: Accessible City Centre was renamed as Connected City Centre. This was because the term "accessible" led respondents to expect this Outcome to address universal design. This was and is covered in Outcome 3. The new title "Connected" emphasises this move’s focus on transport at a local, regional and national scale, particularly the city centre's relationship with the rest of Auckland.

Cities are places of connectivity and this is particularly so in the city centre. It also addresses the use of urban design to create streets and public spaces that enable people to connect with one another, enabling connectivity at a person-to-person level.

The messaging on this Outcome emphasises that the city centre is well-connected within itself, with the rest of Auckland, to the rest of the country and the rest of the world.

Outcome 3: Inclusive, Engaging and Child-Friendly City Centre was renamed to be Accessible and Inclusive City Centre. This centred the outcome on universal design and diversity. Sub-sections cover child-friendliness and healthy ageing. Content on cultural activation was moved to Outcome 5: Public Life.

The messaging with Outcome 3 is one of inclusivity. Everyone is invited to Auckland city centre. All are welcome and it will work for everyone.

Outcome 5: Public Life now contains the “engaging” material previously in Outcome 3. As a whole, this Outcome covers the contribution that public buildings and spaces make to public life. Urban design can help enhance public life through better streets, better spaces, new connections and new destinations.

Outcome 6: Liveable City Centre was renamed Residential City Centre Neighbourhoods. The new title emphasises that this Outcome is specifically about improving the experience of living in the city centre. It focuses on the importance of safe streets, well-defined neighbourhoods and the ‘good ordinary’ streets that are essential for successful residential neighbourhoods, plus the associated design of buildings and their relationship with the street.

51.     Feedback on the Outcomes also shaped the Transformational Moves and A4E text, particularly around inclusion, accessibility and safety.

Themes emerging – Transformational Moves

52.     Eight Transformational Moves were consulted on:

1)      Māori Outcomes

2)      East and West Stitch

3)      Waihorotiu Queen Street Valley

4)      Innovation Cradle

5)      Rapid Transit-Oriented Development

6)      Green Link

7)      City to the Villages

8)      Harbour Edge Stitch.

53.     All eight Transformational Moves were supported by the majority of respondents. The highest support was for Move 5 - Rapid Transit Oriented Development (86 per cent) and Move 6 - Green Link (86 per cent). There was relatively less support for Moves 4 (Innovation Cradle) and 1 (Māori Outcomes).

54.     Among the highest-supported moves, the most consistent theme was one of impatience. Respondents overwhelmingly support the idea of a pedestrian-priority Queen Street, a Victoria Street Linear Park, with people able to access the whole city through well-connected rapid transit.

55.     The responses to Move 4 highlighted confusion around its purpose. As consulted, it was the only non-spatial Move, with a specific emphasis on supporting start-up businesses. Responses highlighted support for the spatial elements: integrating the universities into the fabric of the city centre and enriching the city’s social, economic and cultural offer. 


 

Changes in emphasis to Transformational Moves

56.     Based on these themes, changes were made to one Transformational Move:

Transformational Move 4: Innovation Cradle was renamed (working title) The Learning Quarter. It has been edited with input from the University of Auckland and Auckland University of Technology, plus Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) and other city centre stakeholders and partners. It now has a purely spatial focus, consistent with the other seven Moves and will strengthen the relationship between the city centre and the universities. 

Themes emerging – Access for Everyone (A4E)

57.     A4E received 82 per cent support. In line with feedback on Move 5 (Rapid Transit Oriented Development), a significant theme for the A4E proposal was that this was critical for Auckland’s future, and should be an urgent priority. A4E enables a pedestrian-priority Queen Street. Some expressed frustration that this plan had seemingly been so long in the making, and that the council needed to fully support it, quickly.

58.     A4E submissions included a detailed and supportive submission from Auckland Transport (AT). This noted that A4E aligns with AT’s existing mode shift plans and could be achieved if new enabling programmes are funded and implemented. It also acknowledged that “a greater modal balance in the way people across the region” would be fundamental in achieving the CCMP’s goals.

59.     The New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) also supported A4E in its submission and cited A4E as a flagship programme in traffic management in its submission: Keeping Cities Moving, published in December 2019.

60.     A common theme among supporters and detractors of A4E was the need for deep and meaningful engagement with city centre stakeholders, particularly those involved with movement of people and goods in the city centre.

Changes in emphasis to A4E

61.     In light of this feedback, the A4E material was changed to emphasise that the next stage is to develop the A4E concept into a detailed plan. This will require a well-resourced, long-term process for engagement, analysis and design.

62.     The text also places more emphasis on the use of transition planning to create early wins in support of a longer-term vision for A4E.

Summary of consultation themes and changes

63.     The public consultation identified themes to inform the CCMP, while showing a majority consensus among respondents in favour of the overall vision.

64.     This work is thus the latest step in a continuous thread of Planning Committee-endorsed engagement over the past three years. It has received considerable input from around 50 representative bodies via targeted engagement and 542 public submissions from individuals and organisations.

65.     With endorsement from the Planning Committee of the changes, the council whanau will be able to proceed with delivering the plans, programmes and projects that make up the CCMP vision.  The changes are summarised in Attachment E.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

66.     The direction of the CCMP with regard to climate change has been welcomed by respondents. The plan’s environmental focus was also well-received. Nineteen per cent of participants supported the CCMP based on the vision of a more human-focused and environmentally friendly space. Seventeen per cent of responses supported the CCMP’s focus on improved air quality and plans to combat the effects of climate change.

67.     The largest greenhouse gas emitting sector in the Auckland region is road transport (30 per cent). To address carbon emissions from transport, Auckland Council has committed to the C40 Fossil Fuel Free Streets Declaration to procure only zero-emission buses from 2025; and crucially creating a Zero-Emissions Area (ZEA) in the city centre by 2030.

68.     This would be principally delivered via Access for Everyone (A4E) which plays a key role in delivering a ZEA by establishing the physical street changes required to reduce the impacts of road transport on the city centre.

69.     The CCMP aims to reduce emissions by enabling mode shift towards public transport and active travel as part of the city centre vision. The CCMP envisages the delivery of a ZEA in the Waihorotiu Queen Street valley. This delivers an expansive pedestrian priority zone through the heart of the city centre, significantly reducing motorised through-traffic. It is consistent with CCMP Transformational Moves 3 and 5 as well as A4E.

70.     The need for mode shift is also identified by AT in their submission which stipulated a requirement for a 30 per cent reduction in private motor vehicle traffic. NZTA also supports A4E as a flagship traffic management programme.

71.     The CCMP also addresses climate change adaptation. TM6 envisages green links through the city centre, concentrated in Victoria Street Linear Park. As well as providing high-quality amenity space, this intervention would provide shade and shelter, enabling city centre streets to cope with projected hotter temperatures and heavier rainfall.  Climate change adaptation is also addressed in CCMP Outcome 4 (Green City Centre) and Outcome 9 (Sustainable City Centre).

72.     The CCMP enables activity to be concentrated in the area of Auckland that is most accessible by foot, cycle or public transport. This addresses the single biggest cause of carbon emissions in Auckland. Mode shift, as part of A4E, is expected to reduce emissions further.

73.     The CCMP is thus consistent with Auckland’s high-level vision for climate action. Working within its remit, it sets out a clear vision addressing climate mitigation and adaptation within the city centre.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

74.     This work has entailed constant input from CCOs, particularly Panuku and AT. Subject-specific feedback was provided by Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) and Auckland Tourism, Events and Economic Development (ATEED).

75.     Panuku’s input has delivered a consistent high-level vision for the City Centre and Waterfront. The 2012 Waterfront Plan goals and ideas for delivery were captured in Transformational Move 8 Waterfront and Harbour Edge Stitch. This summarised future moves along the waterfront such as the updated Wynyard Point planning and Central Wharves Strategy. This was supported by 82 per cent of submitters, many of whom commented on the waterfront as Auckland’s greatest asset and the need to improve connections and public access.

76.     The work currently underway to update planning for Wynyard Point, based on the council’s decisions in 2017, will be discussed with this Committee later this year. This will form an update to the Wynyard Precinct of the Waterfront Plan and a precursor to a plan change.  This work will be reported back to the Panuku board later this year.

77.     AT’s submission on the CCMP identified a series of workstreams necessary to deliver the transport outcomes of the new city centre vision. In particular, AT identified that the full implementation of the Access for Everyone concept would likely require a 30 per cent reduction in general traffic during the two-hour morning peak and an increase in peak public transport capacity of 11,000 over that which is already planned for. It also identified the need for:

a)    a well-resourced and clear communications plan around the city centre transition to a new transport system

b)    significant on-going stakeholder engagement (led by the council) on the changes

c)    LTP and RLTP bids for new projects and initiatives to support the necessary mode shift 

d)    significant on-going work on developing, assessing and implementing the new projects and initiatives

e)    a range of travel behaviour change efforts to support and enable the mode shift.

78.     This information was provided in a technical note supplied to the Planning Committee workshop held on 19 February 2020. A copy is attached to this report.

79.     Delivery of the CCMP vision will entail close working with AT. A staff working group with cross-AT disciplines relevant to city centre matters was established in October 2019. It includes representatives from across the council and several teams from the NZTA. This group, led by AT’s Planning and Investment team, will report through established city centre governance mechanisms and progress will also be reported to the Planning Committee. The group will provide input into established budgeting processes, business case development and on-going operational programmes.

80.     This group is now commencing a comprehensive investigation into the implementation of the A4E concept, including the opportunity to develop pilot projects as part of a transition plan.  AT has noted that substantial future funding for A4E initiatives and projects will be required (e.g. additional public transport capacity, modifications to the strategic network, etc.) and this upcoming work will identify this in more detail.

81.     Regional Facilities Auckland (RFA) has been involved throughout the CCMP development. In its submission to the consultation, RFA commended the work done to date on the CCMP and is very keen to be involved in assisting Auckland Council to achieve the outcomes of the CCMP. Particular areas of interest include:

a)    Aotea Quarter – entrenching the Aotea Quarter as the civic, arts and cultural heart of the City

b)    The Harbour Edge Stitch – RFA is very keen to be involved in understanding how we can contribute to improving the experiences of visitors to the waterfront

c)    The East West Stitch – RFA supports the concept of the boulevard for the Grafton Gully/The Strand as an important part of activating the eastern part of the City Centre

d)    Maori Outcomes – RFA fully supports the inclusion of the Maori outcomes in the refresh.

82.     A policy mapping exercise in 2019 identified the considerable synergies between the CCMP and the Auckland Plan 2050. The CCMP is thus in effect the non-statutory area-based plan for delivering the Auckland Plan Outcomes in the city centre.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

83.     In November 2018, a memo was sent to local boards which provided information on the Auckland Design Office (ADO) work programme for updating the 2012 CCMP. Local boards were invited to provide their feedback on the concepts through workshops and business meetings. A further update was circulated to all local boards in July 2019.  Ōrākei and Waitematā Local Boards requested to engage on the CCMP refresh. 

84.     Four CCMP refresh workshops took place with Waitemata Local Board in 2019. A workshop on 12 February 2019 provided an update on the CCMP refresh process and components. Further engagement took place at a second workshop on 28 May. On 23 July, a third workshop invited feedback on the draft consultation material, prior to the start of public consultation. The fourth workshop occurred on 10 December. It provided a high-level summary of the CCMP consultation results.

85.     At their business meeting on 18 February 2020, Waitematā Local Board provided a resolution in overall support of the CCMP (attached).

86.     Two CCMP refresh workshops took place with the Ōrākei Local Board in 2019. A workshop on 10 February 2019 provided an update on the CCMP refresh process and components. The second workshop occurred on 10 December. It provided a high-level summary of the CCMP consultation results and invited the board to provide formal feedback

87.     At their business meeting on 20 February 2020, Ōrākei Local Board provided a resolution in general support of the CCMP (attached).

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

88.     The CCMP refresh team has actively supported the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum (MWKF) Culture and Identity pou over the past year in developing this content.

89.     The Auckland Plan Māori Identity and Wellbeing outcome identifies that: “A thriving Māori identity is Auckland’s point of difference in the world – it advances prosperity for Māori and benefits all Aucklanders”. The objective is that the city centre reflects this aspiration. This has shaped the CCMP refresh.

90.     The greatest changes around the CCMP are centred on the Māori Identify and Wellbeing outcome in the Auckland Plan 2050. This resulted in both a new outcome and a new transformational move in the CCMP.

91.     Outcome 1 Tāmaki Makaurau: Our place in the world envisages contemporary Māori life and culture and mana whenua having a prominent, authentic and active presence in the city centre.

92.     Transformational Move 1 Māori Outcomes: This new move proposes a series of place-based interventions through the city centre and waterfront.

93.     In support of the goals expressed above, the MWKF has approved text and mapped preliminary concepts for further development over the next six months.

94.     The CCMP refresh team has also engaged with non-mana whenua iwi. Mataawaka were invited to participate as part of the targeted engagement. Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei contributed to the development of transformational move 2 and provided a detailed submission on the CCMP.

95.     CCMP content will continue to be developed in partnership with the MWKF. It will also be informed by the Independent Māori Statutory Board’s Schedule of Issues of Significance. Additional advice has been provided by Auckland Council Māori Design subject matter experts and by the Māori Outcomes Advisor.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

96.     The CCMP will shape future inputs and submissions to the Long-Term Plan (LTP) and Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) starting from March 2020.

97.     AT has noted that substantial future funding for A4E initiatives and projects will be required (e.g. additional public transport capacity, modifications to the strategic network, etc.).

98.     The CCMP will provide the high-level vision and inform the strategic case for future projects and initiatives in the city centre and waterfront.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

99.     Timing: the CCMP content has been intended for sign-off by 5 March 2020 in order to inform the 2021-24 LTP process. A delay to the CCMP refresh process would thus have knock-on effects on the funding of city centre and waterfront programmes and projects.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

100.   Endorsement of the CCMP by Planning Committee will allow it to be published as a digital document by April 2020. Maintaining current production processes will enable this target to be met.

101.   With the city centre vision agreed at a strategic level, council whanau will be able to proceed with delivering its constituent plans, programmes and projects. This includes developing the Long Term Plan (LTP) and the Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP). 

102.   Auckland Transport and partners are commencing a comprehensive investigation into the implementation of the Access for Everyone concept, including the opportunity to develop pilot projects as part of a transition plan.

103.   Panuku is continuing to work with council on an update to the Wynyard Quarter precinct of the Waterfront Plan, based on 2017 council direction. It is anticipated that there will be workshops and reports to this committee on the waterfront programme later in 2020.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Ōrākei Local Board submission on CCMP refresh

201

b

Waitematā Local Board submission on CCMP refresh

203

c

CCMP AT Planning Committee technical note

205

d

CCMP feedback from membership organisations

211

e

Outcomes, Moves and A4E

213

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

George Weeks - Principal Urban Design

Authorisers

Tim Fitzpatrick - Manager City Centre Design

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill draft submission

File No.: CP2020/01561

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To seek approval for the Auckland Council submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       The Infrastructure Funding and Financing (IFF) Bill, alongside the Urban Development (UD) Bill is part of a government policy package to support housing and urban development in high growth cities and regions.  The IFF Bill is focused solely on the financing and funding of infrastructure.

3.       This bill provides for the establishment of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) to raise capital for investment in infrastructure to support growth where it is permitted under standard resource management planning processes.  The capital will be repaid by a levy on land benefiting from the infrastructure.  The bill takes the financing and funding arrangements used at Milldale and extends them to enable housing development in other areas where fragmented ownership makes coordinated provision of infrastructure difficult.

4.       In Auckland, SPVs established under the model will work within the current building and resource consent regulatory frameworks in accordance with the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP).

5.       The bill includes key safeguards to protect levy-payers and the council including:

·        capping the total amount of money to be recovered by the levy and monitoring the application of the levy to ensure charges remain appropriate over time

·        ensuring the transparent disclosure of the levy to potential property buyers

·        requesting some key matters to be endorsed by the council

·        before approving a levy, the minister must consider key factors such as affordability and fairness

·        local authorities cannot be responsible for key risks such as construction cost overruns.

6.       The draft submission supports the bill as it will enable acceleration of housing development by increasing investment in infrastructure beyond what the council can support within its debt limits.  Like the Milldale arrangements, the levy proposed under the bill will be included on the rates invoice and collected by the council on behalf of an SPV.  The bill provides for the council’s administration costs to be met.

7.       For local and central government to have confidence that the new financing and funding regime will operate smoothly, staff recommend that some technical issues should be addressed.  These issues include:

·        clarification that land purchase is included in construction costs and how construction cost and other risks will be managed between lenders, the Crown, the council and landowners

·        technical matters regarding implementation of the intent of the endorsements and provision for a dispute resolution process in the event a vesting agreement cannot be agreed

·        technical matters to ensure the alignment of the administration of rates and levies and reconciliation of the overlap of development contributions and levies

·        refinement of rating legislation to better suit the capital repayment role of the levy

·        allowing for the bundling of financing for smaller projects and initiatives (such as connecting households currently on rainwater tanks to the reticulated water supply network).

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      approve the submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill (Attachment A of the agenda report)

b)      delegate to the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee, an Independent Māori Statutory Board Member and the Group Chief Financial Officer to authorise any minor amendments and corrections to finalise the submission.

Horopaki

Context

Infrastructure financing to support housing development

8.       Auckland needs to accelerate investment in infrastructure to address the city’s housing issues.  Building consents have recently reached record levels but this pace will not be able to be sustained without complementary investment in supporting infrastructure.  Auckland Council’s lack of ability to borrow more is a constraint on our ability to provide the infrastructure needed to meet Auckland’s growth challenges. Borrowing beyond our debt ceiling – which the council is very close to – would risk a downgrade to the council’s credit rating, meaning higher interest costs across all our borrowing over time and would impact on our access to debt markets.

9.       In October 2018, the Crown Infrastructure Partners (CIP) entered into an arrangement with Fulton Hogan and the Council to finance $50 million of investment in infrastructure to support the development of 4,500 new homes at Milldale.  This investment is repaid through an annual infrastructure payment on the rates bill of $1,000 for a house and $650 for an apartment over 30 years inflating at 2.5 per cent per year.

10.     Fulton Hogan has informed CIP that section sales are meeting expectations and builders working in the area have sold a number of houses.  All house buyers have been aware of the infrastructure levy and considered this in their purchasing decisions.  All buyers were aware of the option to meet this payment in a lump sum but only the first purchaser took up the option.

11.     In August 2019 the council approved a submission to the New Zealand Productivity Commission’s Local government funding and financing: draft report.  In its submission, the council supported the continuation of the development of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) to allow capital to be raised for investment in infrastructure.  The council noted that legislation would be required to provide for SPVs.

Legislative process

12.     The IFF Bill makes legislative provision for the SPV model.  The bill was introduced into parliament on 12 December 2019 and had its first reading on 17 December 2019. 

13.     Staff have prepared a draft submission on the bill which is included as Attachment A to this report. 

14.     Public submissions on the bill are open until 5 March 2020. The council has been granted an extension until 9 March to allow the Planning Committee to consider this draft submission. 

SPV model

15.     The bill provides for any entity/person, including the council, to propose that a levy be authorised to fund eligible infrastructure via an SPV.  The bill intends that the proposer seek the council’s endorsement of:

·        the specification of the assets including the impact on the wider network

·        its ability to fund the ongoing operation of the assets to be constructed

·        its ability to collect rates during the period of the levy.

16.     In considering the proposal the minister must consider a broad range of factors that mirror the matters the council is required to consider when making funding decisions such as implementing new rates (section 101(3) of the Local Government Act (2002).  These factors include which landowners will benefit from the infrastructure and the affordability of the levy. The total amount of money to be recovered by the levy is capped. The levy will be set by cabinet by Order in Council.  At the same time cabinet will approve a Government Support Package (GSP) to manage any residual risks.  The council is shielded from these risks as the bill precludes it from providing any financial guarantee.

17.     The SPV then raises the capital required and constructs the assets.  Once construction is complete the assets are vested into a responsible infrastructure authority, which would likely be the council.  A monitor appointed by the minister oversees the ongoing operations of the SPV.

18.     Information on the levy must be included on the Land Information Memorandum for affected properties ensuring buyers are aware of the charge.  In collecting a levy, the council may include it on the rates invoice or send a separate invoice.  If included on the rates invoice it must be clearly distinguished from the rates.  The rates invoice for Milldale presents the infrastructure levy in a separate column clearly distinguished from the property rates.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu

Analysis and advice

19.     The funding arrangements proposed in this bill have been reviewed alongside those in the Urban Development Bill.  The financial elements of both these Bills make provision for new sources of capital, public (Kāinga Ora under the UD Bill) and private (IFF), to increase infrastructure investment without jeopardising the council’s financial position.  The council made a submission on the UD Bill on 14 February 2020 which included support for the funding and financing provisions that are similar to the provisions in the IFF Bill.

20.     Unlike the Urban Development Bill, the IFF Bill does not provide a mechanism to change planning rules.  Development proposals under the IFF Bill will be required to be assessed under the provisions of the Resource Management Act and in Auckland, the AUP. This should ensure that development proposals are in alignment with the growth strategy in our plans ensuring the best community and urban development outcomes. Officers note that no significant consents for new housing subdivisions on rural zoned land outside the Rural Urban Boundary (RUB) have been issued since the adoption of the AUP.

21.     In the short term, it is very likely the focus of IFF proposals will be in greenfield areas where growth planning and consenting issues are already well progressed. However, the bill may have enough flexibility to enable it to also apply to brownfield growth areas in the future.

22.     Establishing a levy scheme will improve transparency around the costs of growth-related infrastructure in these areas. In the brownfields a levy proposal could provide capital to address infrastructure capacity constraints for the greater development area. This could encourage further redevelopment in the surrounding area where costs for infrastructure could be shared.

23.     An IFF levy should not materially add to the overall cost of home ownership because house prices are driven by supply and demand as evidenced by the price movements of the last two decades. Buyers will consider the cost of the levy and take this into account in choosing between comparable houses with and without a levy. Houses with a levy should therefore be associated with relatively lower purchase prices (all else being equal) and relatively lower mortgage repayments.

24.     The draft submission supports the bill as it:

·        provides additional capital for infrastructure projects without impacting the council’s debt limits or overriding planning controls

·        provides safeguards to protect the council’s interests as a levy cannot be recommended to the minister without the council’s endorsements

·        includes safeguards to protect the interests of levy payers including a cap on the total levy, ongoing monitoring and transparent disclosure to potential purchasers

·        enables council to recover the cost of collecting the levy

·        residual risks are managed by the GSP and council is precluded from providing financial guarantees eliminating our exposure to cost overruns.

Matters requiring clarification

25.     The draft submission sets out some matters which require further clarification:

·        Land purchase is a major element of the cost of infrastructure, e.g. roads and stormwater management, but is not specifically included in the definition of construction costs. It would be valuable to clarify that these are included as many projects would be unable to proceed without a way to finance and fund the land acquisition costs.

·        All infrastructure projects, and their associated funding, involve a certain measure of risk. The bill prohibits the provision of any guarantee or financial support of the SPV by the responsible levy authority (the council) but allows this to be provided by the Crown. Further documentation associated with this bill, such as cabinet papers and minutes, and information sheets published by the government is clear that residual risks associated with infrastructure projects funded by the levy sit with the Crown via a Government Support Package that will be provided on a case-by-case basis.  They recognise without it the model would not work. The draft submission suggests that for clarity the legislation could make some reference to the role of the Government Support Package without committing the Crown to underwriting all SPV risks in every case.

·        Successful vesting of assets will be key to the success of developments supported by an IFF levy. A process for resolving disputes over the establishment of levy administration agreement between the council and the SPV is included in the bill.  A similar dispute resolution process should also be provided for the establishment of a vesting agreement.

·        Technical matters regarding implementation of the intent of the endorsements and to ensure the alignment of the administration of rates and levies and reconciliation of the overlap of development contributions and levies.

·        Refinements to the current rating legislation to better match the primarily capital repayment requirements of the levy.  While current rating legislation provides some flexibility in the application of rates there are several areas where change has the potential to make the application of new compulsory charges more equitable.

Potential application to a broader range of issues

26.     The IFF model as proposed in the bill envisages investment in a significant stand-alone project to support development in a defined area.  The investment is repaid from levy revenue collected from that area. Establishment costs for this type of scheme means it is not economic to consider stand-alone projects below around $50 million.

27.     An alternative approach to financing that involves bundling smaller infrastructure projects together into a single national-level financing entity may be more economically efficient. Such an approach could also allow the SPV model to be applied to range of other initiatives such as connecting households currently on rainwater tanks to the reticulated water supply network.

28.     Auckland Council staff have begun work with staff at other ‘high-growth’ councils and the Local Government Funding Agency, to investigate these kinds of opportunities and determine how they might complement or build on the IFF model. The draft submission recommends that the government supports further investigation of these opportunities and makes any adjustments necessary to enable the legislation to support a broader range of applications.

Community engagement and elected member leadership

29.     The draft submission also notes the council’s experience of the benefits of elected member leadership and community engagement.  This has helped secure community support and enduring decisions on targeted rates e.g. the Rodney Local Board Transport Targeted Rate.

30.     Where the council makes a decision to propose the establishment of a levy it will be required to consult with affected landowners or take into account their views if already known.  However, third parties may also propose a levy and the bill does not provide a statutory requirement for consultation with affected landowners. Instead, these matters appear to be part of the factors that the responsible minister would be required to consider.

31.     While flexibility in the approach to consultation and engagement may be desirable, where a third party proposes a levy the draft submission encourages the government to promote the value of fostering local elected member leadership and community engagement to support effective decision making.

Tauākī whakaaweawe āhuarangi

Climate impact statement

32.     There is no climate impact in deciding to make a submission. The operations of the SPV, a separate entity established under the bill, may have an impact on the climate.  Any development supported by an SPV will need to meet requirements set out by the council in the Auckland Unitary Plan. The council will consider climate impact when making a decision on a request for an asset endorsement.

Ngā whakaaweawe me ngā tirohanga a te rōpū Kaunihera

Council group impacts and views

33.     Representatives from Panuku Development Auckland, Watercare and Auckland Transport have been involved in council staff workshops and invited to provide feedback on this report.  Their views have been included in the draft submission.

34.     The content of the draft submission has been communicated to and agreed on by the following departments of Auckland Council:

·        Chief Economist

·        Healthy Waters

·        Development Programme Office

·        Plans and Places

·        Community and Social Policy

·        Growth Transport and Infrastructure Strategy

·        Auckland Plan Strategy & Research Department.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe

Local impacts and local board views

35.     A memo was sent to all local board members on 14 January 2020 outlining the process for the IFF Bill submission. Local board members were also provided with the summary of the contents of the bill and a link to the full text of the bill.

36.     A local board workshop, for all local board members, on the IFF Bill was held on Friday 31 January 2020.  Local boards have been invited to send their feedback through by Wednesday 19 February 2020. Comments were received from three local boards. These are attached in full to the draft submission.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori

Māori impact statement

37.     The way in which councils are funded and financed will affect all Auckland ratepayers and residents, including Māori. The draft submission considers the impact on all ratepayers and residents.  Infrastructure proposed by an SPV will be subject to the council’s endorsement.  Impacts on Māori will be assessed on a case by case basis.

38.     The IFF Bill includes provisions to require agreement from owners of protected Māori land to the inclusion of their land within the area of the levy. 

39.     The Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) has provided their feedback and this has been incorporated into the draft submission.

40.     Staff understand that the Mana Whenua Kaitiaki Forum, representing the 19 iwi of Tāmaki Makaurau, is considering making an independent submission.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea

Financial implications

41.     There are no financial implications in deciding to make a submission. The financial implications for the council associated with the implementation of an SPV established under the bill are set out in this report. The Auckland region stands to benefit from the additional housing development that can be supported by the additional investment in infrastructure the SPV model can provide which could not otherwise be accommodated within the council’s debt limits. The council will be reimbursed for the cost of collecting the levy for an SPV.

Ngā raru tūpono me ngā whakamaurutanga

Risks and mitigations

42.     There are no risks in deciding to make a submission. The risks associated with the implementation of a SPV are discussed in this report.  Residual financial risks associated with an SPV are managed by the GSP and the council is precluded from giving financial guarantees.  The council is protected from asset risk by the intent of the requirement for it to endorse both the asset specification (including wider network impacts) and its ability to manage the ongoing operating costs of the assets. The draft submission recommends some changes to the IFF Bill to address minor risk issues.

Ngā koringa ā-muri

Next steps

43.     If approved, the Auckland Council submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill will be sent by the deadline of 9 March 2020.

44.     The government will consider changes to the bill as it moves through parliament during its second and third readings.  We understand that the government intends to pass the legislation by mid-2020. 

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Draft submission on the Infrastructure Funding and Financing Bill

223

b

Local Board Views

235

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Authors

Andrew Duncan - Manager Financial Policy

Beth Sullivan - Principal Advisor Policy

Authorisers

Ross Tucker - General Manager, Financial Strategy and Planning

Matthew Walker - Group Chief Financial Officer

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

 


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings - 5 March 2020

File No.: CP2020/00998

 

  

Te take mō te pūrongo

Purpose of the report

1.       To provide a summary and public record of memos or briefing papers that have been distributed to committee members.

Whakarāpopototanga matua

Executive summary

2.       This is a regular information-only report which aims to provide greater visibility of information circulated to committee members via memo/briefing or other means, where no decisions are required.

3.       The following information items are attached:

·   Auckland Monthly Housing Update January 2020 (Attachment A)

·   5 February 2020 – Auckland Council’s submission on Transforming the resource management system: opportunities for change - Issues and options paper (Attachment B)

·   14 February 2020 – Auckland Council’s submission on the Urban Development Bill (Attachment C).

4.       The following memos were circulated to members:

·   30 January 2020 – Government’s Infrastructure Funding Announcement - $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme (Attachment D)

·   18 February 2020Auckland Council’s submission on the Urban Development Bill (Attachment E).

5.       The following workshop and briefing information is attached:

·   11 February 2020 – Confidential Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy Work Programme Briefing (Attachment F)

·   19 February 2020 – City Centre Masterplan Refresh Workshop (Attachment G).

6.       The following correspondence is attached:

·   19 February 2020 – Letter to Ministers on the Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy Work Programme (Attachment H).

7.       Staff will not be present to answer questions about the items referred to in this summary. Committee members should direct any questions to the authors of each information item.

8.       The attachments for this report have been published separately at the following link: http://infocouncil.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz > Planning Committee > 5 March 2020 > Extra Attachments

Ngā tūtohunga

Recommendation/s

That the Planning Committee:

a)      receive the Summary of Planning Committee information items and briefings – 5 March 2020 report.

 

Ngā tāpirihanga

Attachments

No.

Title

Page

a

Auckland Monthly Housing Update January 2020 (Under Separate Cover)

 

b

Auckland Council’s submission on Transforming the resource management system: opportunities for change - Issues and options paper  (Under Separate Cover)

 

c

Auckland Council’s submission on the Urban Development Bill (Under Separate Cover)

 

d

Memo - Government’s Infrastructure Funding Announcement – $12 billion New Zealand Upgrade Programme (Under Separate Cover)

 

e

Memo - Urban Development Bill Submission process (Under Separate Cover)

 

f

Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy Work Programme Briefing  (Under Separate Cover)

 

g

City Centre Masterplan Refresh Workshop minutes (Under Separate Cover)

 

h

Letter to Ministers on the Upper North Island Supply Chain Strategy Work Programme  (Under Separate Cover)

 

     

Ngā kaihaina

Signatories

Author

Duncan Glasgow - Kaitohutohu Mana Whakahaere / Governance Advisor

Authoriser

Megan Tyler - Chief of Strategy

      

 


Planning Committee

05 March 2020

 

Exclusion of the Public: Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987

That the Planning Committee

a)      exclude the public from the following part(s) of the proceedings of this meeting.

The general subject of each matter to be considered while the public is excluded, the reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter, and the specific grounds under section 48(1) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 for the passing of this resolution follows.

This resolution is made in reliance on section 48(1)(a) of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 and the particular interest or interests protected by section 6 or section 7 of that Act which would be prejudiced by the holding of the whole or relevant part of the proceedings of the meeting in public, as follows:

 

C1       CONFIDENTIAL: Auckland Unitary Plan (Operative in Part) - rural subdivision appeals and delegation to make urgent decisions on all remaining appeals

Reason for passing this resolution in relation to each matter

Particular interest(s) protected (where applicable)

Ground(s) under section 48(1) for the passing of this resolution

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

s7(2)(g) - The withholding of the information is necessary to maintain legal professional privilege.

s7(2)(i) - The withholding of the information is necessary to enable the local authority to carry on, without prejudice or disadvantage, negotiations (including commercial and industrial negotiations).

In particular, the report contains a recommended set of rural subdivision provisions for an Environment Court hearing in June 2020.

s48(1)(a)

The public conduct of the part of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which good reason for withholding exists under section 7.

 

   



[1] Page 33